[U-Boot] U-Boot git usage model

[Scott Wood]

On 10/11/2012 12:16:58 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:54:46 -0500, Scott Wood
> <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 10/10/2012 01:40:54 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > > Re committer identity, I don't see the relationship with "by"
> > > tags, and
> > > > > especially with Singed-off-by, since the sign-off is not and  
> must
> > > not
> > > > > be related to the committer of the patch, but to its  
> author(s).
> > > >
> > > > At least the way the Linux kernel uses the tag, both the  
> original
> > > author
> > > > of the patch /and/ anyone who applies the patch, cherry-picks  
> the
> > > patch,
> > > > ... must add their S-o-b line. I think U-Boot isn't using that  
> part
> > > of
> > > > the model.
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. IIUC, U-Boot's "Signed-off-by" is supposed to mean  
> "I
> > > am (one of) the autor(s) of this patch".
> >
> > Is this documented anywhere?
> >
> > http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/DevelopmentProcess says, "U-Boot has
> > adopted the Linux kernel signoff policy".
> 
> Please do read the Linux kernel signoff policy as laid out in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

You want me to read the Linux policy for documentation of how U-Boot  
deviates from Linux policy?

> Branch or subsystem maintainers should
> add their Signed-off-by only if they made modifications to the  
> original
> patch in the process of applying it.

That's not what it says.

> Then read http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches: "the Signed-off-by:
> is a line at the end of the commit message by which the signer
> certifies that he was involved in the development of the patch and  
> that
> he accepts the Developer's Certificate of Origin (see
> SubmittingPatches).
> 
> In U-Boot, we typically do not add a Signed-off-by: if we just pass on
> a patch without any changes".

Thanks.  FWIW I think putting policy documents in a wiki, without any  
guidance on who's supposed to edit it or how changes get approved, is a  
bad idea.  Why not put policy documents in the git-managed source  
tree?  And changes would be
proposed, discussed, and accepted/rejected like any other change.  Plus  
there'd be at least a chance of a commit message showing rationale.

In any case, if this is the policy, we should not be saying that we  
follow the Linux policy.

> (the "Certificate of Origin" is laid out in the "SubmittingPatches"
> documentation file from Linux)
> 
> > Actual behavior is probably inconsistent between custodians.
> 
> I haven't seen such inconsistency and certainly don't want to see any,
> at least in ARM trees from which I have to pull.

I've been signing off patches I apply to the NAND tree.  I recall  
stopping at one point in the past because someone complained, and then  
starting again -- not sure if someone else complained about doing it  
*that* way, or if I just noticed others doing it.

Looking through the history I see others that seems to be doing the  
same (outside ARMland), though I can't say for sure without  
investigating whether the patch was "passed on without any changes" in  
each instance.

-Scott